It's a question inspired by CJA's article about which established characters should appear in Episode VII. Obviously the surviving heroes from the first trilogy will be in it, and it looks like Tatooine will play a significant role in the story. And hopefully we'll see lots of new characters and locations as well. But should the new movies be sequels only to the original films? Is there anything salvageable or relevant from the prequels that should appear, or at least be mentioned in the new movies?
I'm sure the response among diehard fans would be No, not at all. Ideally, the movies would deal only with the backstory as established in IV-VI and pretend that those other films never existed. Even so, I know that talking to some of you guys not everybody flat-out hates the prequels. (For the record, I'm fond of Phantom Menace, mostly for personal reasons rather than inherent value, and I think Revenge of the Sith is a pretty decent Star Wars movie, for what it's worth.) But with the Expanded Universe gone, there's not much else lore to draw upon. And given that Lucasfilm has emphasized the canonicity of Clone Wars and Rebels and that the spinoffs form part of a narrative through-line that runs from Episode I to VII, I can't imagine that this means that Abrams and Kasdan — let alone Lucas, whose treatment forms the basis of their story — would abandon any of that material completely.
So what elements from the prequels would you like to see, or could at least tolerate, in the new trilogy? It always seemed to me that the whole notion of the Balance of the Force was pretty much forgotten after Episode I — since that was such a big deal, clearly it would have to have some sort of long lasting consequences in the post-Jedi movies. And you'd probably have to have Coruscant at some point — heck, I wouldn't put it past them to throw in a field trip to Naboo — hopefully not the Lake Country, though. (Dear God please, not the Lake Country.)